M.m.e. v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
M.M.E.,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72005
Agency No. A205-297-891
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 6, 2017
Seattle, Washington
Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,** District
Judge.
1. Petitioner testified that a co-defendant placed an order directing cartel
members to kill petitioner after learning he had cooperated with the authorities.
FILED
AUG 01 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the Eastern
District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

When co-defendants suspected another co-defendant was cooperating, they ordered
cartel members to kill him, and this order reached cartel members in Mexico.
In addition to his testimony, petitioner also presented documentary evidence
that the cartel, as one of the largest in Mexico, exerts tremendous power over
public officials in Mexico, particularly local officials. This documentary evidence,
together with petitioner’s testimony, compels the conclusion that “it is more likely
than not that [Petitioner] will be tortured if removed to [Mexico],” Eneh v. Holder,
601 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 2010), with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official, see Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 510 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Voluminous
evidence in the record explains that corruption of public officials in Mexico
remains a problem, particularly at the state and local levels of government, with
police officers and prison guards frequently working directly on behalf of drug
cartels.”).
2. The agency did not consider petitioner’s ability to relocate within Mexico
to avoid being tortured. See Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir.
2015) (“In deciding whether the applicant has satisfied his or her burden, the IJ
must consider all relevant evidence, including but not limited to the possibility of
relocation within the country of removal.”). We therefore remand for further
proceedings to address that issue.
PETITION GRANTED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --